I've got a really nice leather jacket, I wear it all the time. Not sure if that counts the same as a fur coat but it seems like it would. I think this whole idea of support and participation just comes across so much like the 'guilty by association' idea during the Cold War. I don't agree with the suggested chain of cause and effect that establishes these ideas of blame.
The problem for me is that things are all lumped together. Factory-farming is unnatural and twisted. Yet, then all hunting is classified as though it was factory farming which doesn't make sense to me.
I also don't believe that animals do anything to be of service, rather there are balances in nature. The catalyst provided is neutral in itself until it is made positive or negative by the individual. I think it can be easily argued the many challenges and hard to swallow things that go in to animals produces a more intense catalyst. However, I think the subjective nature of polarity is sometimes underestimated.
Is killing morally, ethically a 'bad thing'? Sure, if your philosophy says so. However, is it polarizing? That's a whole other can of worms I think. I also don't think it has anything to do with justification either but has to do with how one chooses to integrate with their experience.
It can't be polarizing in and of itself, or else I am sure every other hunter would be harvestable negatively.
I was talking with a friend last night who is a bow Hunter. They buy almost no meat from stores and instead hunt and fish. He only takes what he kills and he only kills what he needs to feed his family. He told me that one day after he had success and while he was starting to clean and process he was attacked by some young individuals who even threw rocks at him even though he was hunting legally, he had only made one kill, and every part of the animal was going to his family for food and other things.
I also have a lot of first Nations friends who have shared their cultural views that hunting is about respect, about honouring the animal and making use of every part so nothing is wasted. I've worked in a grocery store. I know how much food is wasted. This is seen as incredibly disrespectful to the animals who gave of their life because it is seen that we are not even making use of what we kill. That is one reason why I don't feel guilty if I do eat meat from the store, because it is ultimately intended to make use of the energy that was given and offer respect and gratitude to animals.
Going through the meat aisle and saying sorry to every steak doesn't seem quite as sincere as directly appreciating the energy exchange taking place.
The argument has been made again and again that somehow your decision to eat meat retroactively makes you responsible for its death. I think that is total nonsense and doesn't make any sense in terms of cause and effect, but even if that's true, I would be willing to take on this responsibility for a few reasons. One, because it is taking responsibility for myself as part of the planetary species. Two, because I am then acknowledging and accepting the life and death of the animal and acknowledges that I am now a link in the chain of its greater life totality. Three, because it allows me to accept the state of the energy of the animal as it came to me. Four, because then what started as a heartless process can end in love and light.
I will accept the responsibility of the killer rather than try to control the catalyst. (No, I would not have these things continue for the sake of my service, I do what I do to deal with and work with what is going on now, not in some potential future.)
Also, I know that this approach is not suitable for many people, I was trying to refrain from getting involved anymore, but then I realized I thought this viewpoint should be fairly represented for those who may share it and feel they have a hard time accepting themselves as well as for fair consideration by others with differing viewpoints. I am learning that sharing doesn't require me to give up my position simply because it is different.
The problem for me is that things are all lumped together. Factory-farming is unnatural and twisted. Yet, then all hunting is classified as though it was factory farming which doesn't make sense to me.
I also don't believe that animals do anything to be of service, rather there are balances in nature. The catalyst provided is neutral in itself until it is made positive or negative by the individual. I think it can be easily argued the many challenges and hard to swallow things that go in to animals produces a more intense catalyst. However, I think the subjective nature of polarity is sometimes underestimated.
Is killing morally, ethically a 'bad thing'? Sure, if your philosophy says so. However, is it polarizing? That's a whole other can of worms I think. I also don't think it has anything to do with justification either but has to do with how one chooses to integrate with their experience.
It can't be polarizing in and of itself, or else I am sure every other hunter would be harvestable negatively.
I was talking with a friend last night who is a bow Hunter. They buy almost no meat from stores and instead hunt and fish. He only takes what he kills and he only kills what he needs to feed his family. He told me that one day after he had success and while he was starting to clean and process he was attacked by some young individuals who even threw rocks at him even though he was hunting legally, he had only made one kill, and every part of the animal was going to his family for food and other things.
I also have a lot of first Nations friends who have shared their cultural views that hunting is about respect, about honouring the animal and making use of every part so nothing is wasted. I've worked in a grocery store. I know how much food is wasted. This is seen as incredibly disrespectful to the animals who gave of their life because it is seen that we are not even making use of what we kill. That is one reason why I don't feel guilty if I do eat meat from the store, because it is ultimately intended to make use of the energy that was given and offer respect and gratitude to animals.
Going through the meat aisle and saying sorry to every steak doesn't seem quite as sincere as directly appreciating the energy exchange taking place.
The argument has been made again and again that somehow your decision to eat meat retroactively makes you responsible for its death. I think that is total nonsense and doesn't make any sense in terms of cause and effect, but even if that's true, I would be willing to take on this responsibility for a few reasons. One, because it is taking responsibility for myself as part of the planetary species. Two, because I am then acknowledging and accepting the life and death of the animal and acknowledges that I am now a link in the chain of its greater life totality. Three, because it allows me to accept the state of the energy of the animal as it came to me. Four, because then what started as a heartless process can end in love and light.
I will accept the responsibility of the killer rather than try to control the catalyst. (No, I would not have these things continue for the sake of my service, I do what I do to deal with and work with what is going on now, not in some potential future.)
Also, I know that this approach is not suitable for many people, I was trying to refrain from getting involved anymore, but then I realized I thought this viewpoint should be fairly represented for those who may share it and feel they have a hard time accepting themselves as well as for fair consideration by others with differing viewpoints. I am learning that sharing doesn't require me to give up my position simply because it is different.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)